A Disappointment with SP2

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Steve,I agree with you. FSX SP1, SP2 and Acceleration has not been good for 3rd party developers. I've stopped all my FSX projects. BUT, not so much because of how the changing process was communicated by Phil/Aces, but because of the low sales numbers of FSX. The FSX user market is just too small to justify my time/investment.I'm not blaming this on Microsoft/Aces/Phil -- it is directly related to the 15:1 ratio of console to PC game sales. Top selling PC game title (which has FSX listed as 10th) got 77,000 copies sold vs. 878,000 on the console side. I don't know the exact numbers of FSX and never expect to know them, but based on the data I have for products out selling FSX, it's not a market share I find attractive to develop for. The entire SP1, SP2, Acceleration DX10 Preview issue is what solidified my decision to stay out of the 3rd party development arena for FSX. If FS 11 is produced for the PC, I'll return and at least investigate to see if anything was learned from what has happened in the FSX development process. But the ever shrinking PC gaming market is my real concern. I have my opinions on why the PC gaming marketing is shrinking, but that debate is not for this site.I think perhaps what Phil is missing in your case, is that you will have to do much work for what will be zero return in your investment/time.Rob.

[MD83 1]

>This has been a very interesting read. I wasn't aware FSX has>been such a mess for aircraft designers too.> I'm a scenery designer, at least I used to be before FSX>came along. Im disgusted with FSX both as a simmer & a>developer. This program needs a engine re-write. The 10 year>old code running FSX must end with this version to move>forward.>The SDK is poorly documented; offers limited visual>improvements, does not support custom high end ground,taxiway,>runway creation. The FS2002 SDK is still the only way to hack>around the crappy default apron,runway textures. The new>shaders look awful. Just look at the glass/refmap in the>default KSEA tower. I'm not sticking that mess on my models.>The exporting process is an absolute circus of confusion. GUID>numbers, friendly IDs, flipping dds textures. Its all such a>mess. Development is 90% struggling with the naff exporter>tools, 10% artwork. It really should be the other way round.>I'm not in this for the money, it used to be fun with FS2002 &>FS9, so i'm not willing to struggle with incompetent software>that still runs terribly. I have a 3.8Ghz quad core , 4GB of>ram & a NV8800GTX. FSX performance is heartbreakingly>disappointing. I wouldn't have a problem with the performance>if the visuals were nextgen, but it some cases it can be>inferior to FS9. Theres still many ways to induce strong>blurring, popping autogen & single digit framerates because>theres so much obsolete bloated code.> I've worked in the videogames industry for over ten years.>I've shipped 3x XBOX360 games in the last 3 years. I've used>lots of propriety & commercial toolsets. The FSX SDK is by far>the worst software i've ever laid hands on. >>George Grimshaw / FlyTampaDon't hold back ... tell us what you really think :-lol

[Guest Bonkey]

That was holding back ;) I've been banned from this site 4 times since FSX shipped :)

[N400QW 205]

Rob, George, that's exactly why we made the decision to charge for our FSX Products. We took a lot of heat but can tell you that it is time for FS9 and FSX users to stop complaining and step up to the plate and support their favorite developers by actually purchasing their products.It's not too far fetched to consider the possibility that your favorite 3PD of today may think that it's no longer a worthwhile endevour and shut his doors.

[Steve Halpern 176]

From reading some of the many posts, there seems to be some unified findings...The state of the add-on industry, whether professional or free.It obviously appears like the industry is somewhat in a mess because of the "moving target" aspect of FSX. On one hand, Microsoft wants to move the franchise forward with new technology, and on the other hand, they do want to accommodate the past add-on base. Mixed with the difficulty of Vista, hardware requirements, etc, we are left in somewhat murky waters. There is less to choose from in the freeware sectors, and development is ultimately slow in the FSX sectors both for professional and freeware titles. And there is a reason for this somewhere in the mix. We all wish Microsoft could be like the smaller "enthusiast" companies.Yes, it would be neat if there was a place where Microsoft (Aces) could have live connection from their programmers to the end user, put out experimental updates, preview "hey, this is neat" items, release updates as needed in real time, and stuff like that. The best they do is to allow FSInsider stuff, as well as blogs like Phil Taylor's. But, there still feels like there is an untouchable canyon between the add-on developers and the core coders at Aces. We wonder where the coders are? Are they in a secret cave somewhere under super security? We know they are close by to a degree, but it really feels like it is tough getting a sense of them. This sense of closer access is something that the corporate structure of Microsoft may prevent. And this structure does limit what the staff that Microsoft puts on the front lines can actually do, even if they really wanted to do something.The above is merely an observation to put out, not saying it can actually change. But an acknowledgement of the above helps set a basis in reality.A well defined technological matrix should be defined.Phil did bring this up and it makes good sense. In fact, a proposed matrix of features could be derived by the 3rd parties, and could be submitted. Aces can then see what we all may really want... such as better access to weather information, or flight plan information. Then, Aces could use this to help define the matrix they can pretty much commit to us on. Then updates in the future would be to improve on the matrix items, not remove from them.Backwards compatibility.It is understood that at some point backwards compatibility needs to be dropped for certain era's of technology. I think it may be painfully voted by many that the FS11 engine should be designed to work as efficient and as fast as possible. This may require abandonment of past code. Thus effort could be put into the best engine, and time is only spent on new, clean technology. But in doing so we will lose partial access to a vast library. Here, any export or conversion tools that can be provided through the mutual effort of Aces and the 3rd parties would be great, and it would potentially lead to a clean/fresh canvas that could last for many years.In summaryIt is very obvious there have been many frustrations from so many sectors of the Flight Simulator X marketplace. There have obviously been some good strides forward, and some disappointing stumbles along the way.Is what we are talking about in this thread going to make a difference? Maybe not, but maybe yes, it could be a start of a better direction.So, would we all vote for a clean slate if it meant that the overall fun factor in this hobby would increase again? I remember back in the DOS days when you had to mess with Autoexec.bat and Config.sys settings on FS5.0a (when I started), and then with FS5.1. The overall "enjoyment factor" then was maybe at its highest for some reason. Then you had FS98 and FS2004 as other standouts in the era where you can say things flowed very well and there was that fun factor. And that is where I think we need to move to... a platform that allows us to really enjoy the sim. When this happens, the rest of the pieces will fall into place.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Yeah that does indeed happen, the larger the company the worse the communication gets twisted. But the bottom line (money) always wins.Best approach is to expand your horizons and never place all your eggs in one basket. I've started to diversify my technical experience starting around 2001 when I saw the direction Microsoft were moving in. Now I code on multiple platforms and I'm finding larger markets in places I didn't expect and they aren't based on anything from Microsoft.I'm still an FS'er, but FS2004 is what I still enjoy the most as I have a wealth of add-ons (some my own) that work well with it and extend it's functionality beyond what is in FSX. And no matter what I toss at FS2004 I can retain a solid 40 fps. To Ace's credit FS 2004 is still an impressive product, FSX does have moments of glory, unfortunately they are only moments.Rob.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Ron,As much as I don't want to see doors closed, it's really not up to either of us. The consumer decides. If Microsoft wanted to make the PC platform a more hospitable place for games/simmers that's not really something we 3PD have much of a say in.You have to look at the sales numbers across PC, Consoles, Mac, etc. -- to be honest, XBOX360 is doing VERY well and I have to dare suggest that Microsoft put more resources into games for XBOX than games for the PC. This appears to me to be by design. I can't make the consumer have a better gaming experience on the PC, only Microsoft can do that. I have to go where the money is being spent.At one point Microsoft were making a push for games on the PC as the PC games shelves were occupying smaller and smaller and smaller floor space of retail outlets like BestBuy, Fry's Electronics, E/B, etc. etc. -- this push either had no affect, or was just a 1/2 hearted attempt.I didn't want to debate this in here, but I believe the major reason for the decline of PC gaming is the technical experience needed to get games to work. Vista and DX10 has only made matters worse -- not many gamers/simmers are willing to:1. Spend $500 on a GPU only and another $1000 on a CPU2. Spend hours surfing the web looking for solutions to problems3. Spend hours downloading and installing the latest Drivers, BIOS, updates, etc. etc.This is why console gaming is so popular, you buy the title, you go home, you play it, you don't even need to know who "Phil Taylor" is, and you don't need to know what an FSX.CFG file is nor where it's located, you don't need to know who ATI are nor nVidia. Personally, I feel Microsoft could do A LOT more for the PC gamers, but I don't think they really want to -- after all, they have the XBOX360 which is covering that base just fine.I could post ONLY POSITIVE things about PC gaming and FSX and Microsoft, but that's like sticking my head in a hole in the ground and pretending all is good. This still does NOT generate any momentum to end consumers, it does not promote consumers to buy products. I want to keep the dream alive, but it really isn't up to me do that.Rob.

[Guest SpeedBird192]

Sounds reasonable. For my suggestion: FS11 - open source - lets see just how dedicated Microsoft really is. There are enough talented developers that can solve existing problems if Microsoft had elected open source policy on FSX.Wouldn't it be nice if a developer came up with a conversion program that you simply run against your existing FS9 aircraft that would make them work with FSX or FS11. If Microsoft are truly serious about keeping the dream alive, this is the place to start - open it up.Rob.

[timers15 11]

I think it's in the interest of 3rd party developers to have an open source base flight sim. There could even be an arrangement by which the base flight sim is purchased. Open Source does not mean starving developers.I myself would be willing to pay significantly more for my flight simming if it meant that the 3rd party guys potential was even more optimized. This would also mean that the people who develop the little standalone stuff could integrate it into the sim. I can think of some good examples of free addons that if integrated into the sim would simply start working for every add on plane.

[B777ER 2,570]

If in fact FSX is using a engine that has powered many previous versions...after all the angst of this version, would it just not make sense to start over with a brand new engine and screw back compat? This way a fresh start would allow FS11, 12, 13 to be something totally new? What am I missing?

[Geofa 108]

Hi Andre-I am using 169.25 beta.http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest sourdoughman]

You hit the nail on the head here.I shouldn't have to upgrade my computer every 2 years when a new flight simulator comes out.I am a consumer who bought FSX and my experience with it is that I was disappointed with the performance and SP1 so why should SP2 be any different?I have kept up and read threads on the subject from time to time.I wish I would have done that before I spent the $70 for software that I can't use.I have a 3 ghz dual Pentium 4, btw flight simulator claims you need a 1 ghz machine on the box.I still use FS9 but I did use FSX in rural areas, I got tired of trying to tweak it and said the heck with it.After a little while I needed the hard drive space so I deleted it.I was thinking about re-installing it after SP2 but after reading posts I don't think I will waste my time or space.I find it more satisfying buying a 360 game, you are able to enjoythose without racking your brain trying to tweak the thing.I think Aces screwed up when they tried to make this software forwardcompatible with future computers instead of backward compatable.I know I read this somewhere in this forum from Aces many months ago.What kind of logic is there in thinking this when the life cycle of this title is only 2 years?Some might not like what I have to say but at least I got a little more bang for the buck.You can bet I won't rush out and buy the next FS title until I have read more posts here and at Flightsim.

[N400QW 205]

Rob, exactly what I meant. Consumers do indeed decide by their support of their favorite 3PD. No support, no 3PD company.Just saying that ROI determines how far we all go with our efforts for whatever platform the future holds...You've described your own situation well enough for users to understand the reason for your decison. We have to agree that the half baked Vista/DX10 situation has added much agravation to the mix. Even the hardware guys are having trouble building great driver sets for FSX/DX10 Preview.We suspect that much of this is driven by the MS decison to make DX10 the API of the future no matter the cost to existing market. Add in the transition from Gmax to 3D Studio Max and the lack of the proper tools/documentation for half a year and users have a glimpse at the technical evolution that has effected the franchise.We've heard the FS/PC/Xbox rumours for about two and a half years now and if MS abandons the PC segment for Xbox then the PC franchise will be frozen where we are now and no amount of moaning and groaning from users will bring it forward.

[virtualstuff 776]

>Some might not like what I have to say but at least I got a>little more bang for the buck.>You can bet I won't rush out and buy the next FS title until I>have read more posts here and at Flightsim.>Good points but a reminder also with the console they aren't backwards compatible hence you have to buy the "brand new console" to use that brand new game ;-)http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y156/awf1/sign.jpg

[NWarty 0]

Although I have no vested interest in FSX and am currently an FS9 user, this has to be one of the most fascinating threads I've ever read at Avsim. Ron, Steve and George, as a customer of all of your companies, I appreciate your honesty, loyalty to this community and willingness to give a little glimpse behind your doors.Blake